In Wes Boyd's story "The Next Generation," much of it taking place on a farm, in Chapter 9, there is this paragraph: "That bothered me, too," Ken admitted, "but we'd have to squeeze it in between the second cutting and school starting."
Question - "second cutting" of what? Not clear from the story for us not familiar with farm seasons.
Second cutting of hay. Depending on the weather grass will grow enough after being cut in early Summer to be cut again in late Summer or early Fall.
Question - "second cutting" of what? Not clear from the story for us not familiar with farm seasons.
Probably hay.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hay
Hay is grass, legumes, or other herbaceous plants that have been cut and dried to be stored for use as animal fodder, particularly for large grazing animals raised as livestock, such as cattle, horses, goats, and sheep.
Depending on the locale and weather which determine growing season, in some places four or five cuttings of alfalfa are usual.
Depending on the locale and weather which determine growing season, in some places four or five cuttings of alfalfa are usual.
Where I grew up no body raised alfalfa, just grasses like Coastal Bermuda and Bahia. There was one guy I knew who baled kudzu for his horses, though he had some trouble keeping it in the hay field and out of the trees. The other problem with kudzu is baling it made you itch worse than combining soy beans.
one guy I knew who baled kudzu for his horses
Why bale it...? At the rate it grows you would not have to place many plants close to the stable for it to grow as fast as the horse could eat it...!
Why bale it...?
So the horse can keep eating through winter. That's the same reason they bale hay, rather than just letting the livestock out in the field to graze.
I'm aware of why hay is baled and how horses are fed. The comment was based on the ridiculously fast growing rate of Kudzu (Up to a foot a day) and the image of a horse eating a plant that grew as fast as it was eaten. Kind of perpetual fodder...
:)
Depending on the locale and weather which determine growing season, in some places four or five cuttings of alfalfa are usual.
Here in west central Iowa we would get between three and four cuttings. This was alfalfa with some clover mixed in.
Back in chapter six there is a line:
because the second cutting of hay was ready at the same time corn silage was ready
so I think it's adequately described; also, a major plot point in the early story is the modifications to the tractor to allow Judy to drive it so she can help in the hay cutting.
Question - "second cutting" of what?
First I didn't realize it meant hay, because in German the first and second cuttings have different names (Heu, Grummet) while all following cuts are just numbered. According to the English Wikipedia all cuts are just hay.
So my question: does English have different words for first and second cut? (my two German-English dictionaries ignore Grummet).
HM.
No, just first cutting, second cutting, and so on...
Some hay buyers do value the first cutting higher, others are just glad to get hay.
No, just first cutting, second cutting, and so on...
Some hay buyers do value the first cutting higher, others are just glad to get hay.
Yes, usually the first cutting is the best with the highest yield. The second cutting is good, and the third and fourth are ok, but usually average.
Some hay buyers do value the first cutting higher, others are just glad to get hay.
Why? What's better about a first cutting that would make a buyer value it more?
Why? What's better about a first cutting that would make a buyer value it more?
First cut hay is coarser than second cut, as the spring growth (due to more rain, different temps, and a different spectrum of light, * quantity of light/energy) usually tends to have thicker stems and stalks and heavier leaves.
In terms of animal fodder, it's more bang for the buck.
ETA: *
Think of the fresh, lush growth of spring alfalfa, just coming into bloom. Higher ratio of leaf to stem, and cut while the stems are young and tender. Properly air-cured and baled, the result is a lush greenish hay that is resistant to shatter when handling. It is by far more palatable and nutritious. That, coupled with the fact that the rancher is quick to harvest it so the second growth will follow, avoids letting the growth become 'stemmy' and not so palatable.
The second cutting can be very good hay if harvested soon enough. But the third cutting, if there is one, is usually the result of letting it grow, and grow late into the season, so it's mostly hard stems and smaller leaves, meaning the ratio of tender leaf to thick stem is skewed.
In the high mountain valley where I worked summers raking hay, baling it, and loading and stacking the bales while in high school, ranchers got only two cuttings; and frequently that second cutting was not as good... thus bringing a lower price, or serving as 'homestead feed' for one's own cattle.
Living here on the coast, I've seen too much really dreadful hay harvests, mostly stems with the brittle leaves shattered and lost, because of too many rain showers and the cut hay laying in the field too long before it's dry enough to bale. I s'pect that's why the new "haylage" method of cutting and bagging to make field-cured hay silage is so popular.
Been there, lived it, done it.
I worked summers raking hay, baling it, and loading and stacking the bales while in high school
That was the hottest, sweatiest, and dirtiest job I have ever had. On the wagon, grabbing them out of the baler, tossing them back or then up and back. I'd get home and just go through the side door into the basement and to the shower directly - with my clothes ON, so I could get the dirt off of them so they could line dry and I could wear them the next day.
I was stuck stacking the bales in the barn one time. This barn had livestock on the ground floor, and hay storage above. And it was huge, both in height and length. We wound up having one man at the elevator head. He would toss the bales across the floor to a relay man, who would then toss the bales to the man stacking. That man had to build a stair-step stack so he could get the bales all the way up to the 20th layer (high roof as well). To top it off, the barn had a metal roof, and no cross ventilation. We would actually get out of the barn and down on the ground every couple of hay racks to cool of and rehydrate. Definitely earned our pay that day.
The first summer I got sent to the hay field wasn't so bad. I was to small to handle the bales so I drove the truck, an old Studebaker 1.5 ton wth no doors and two concrete blocks with a board for a seat.
One of the men would get the truck started in first gear and get out, leaving me to stand on the board and steer it between the rows of hay. At the end of the row someone would jump back in and get the truck turned around for another run. When the truck was full one of the fastest young'uns was sent ahead down the steep hill to the pasture where the barn was located to open the gate before the truck got there...NO BRAKES! Just first gear to keep the truck from going too fast.
The next summer I lost my driving job to a younger cousin and got promoted? to dragging bales from the back of the truck to the stackers.
By the next year I was big enough to throw a bale from the ground up to the new kid on the truck.
God I wish that guy that invented those big round balers had been born 30 years sooner!
Edit to add: There is nothing more exiting than to grab a bale of hay, throw it on the truck, and then realize the damn thing was full of fire ants.
As much as some bitch about working hay (myself included), it did go a long way towards instilling a work ethic. Dug ditches, put up a barn, chopped wood, stacked hay, and a few dozen other rural necessities of life, all before the age of 12.
Some idiots in a big city thought it was child abuse. When I look back on it, I see it as building character and a work ethic. Ignoring a child, letting them fend for themselves, never teaching them how to work, and a myriad of other similar things is, IMO, child abuse.
Ignoring a child, letting them fend for themselves, never teaching them how to work, and a myriad of other similar things is, IMO, child abuse.
AMEN
Some idiots in a big city
As a child I well remember a certain elder relatives favourite maxim. "If you want to see an idiot in the country, bring one out from the town."
If you want to see an idiot in the country, bring one out from the town.
Truer words cannot be spoken.
As a child I well remember a certain elder relatives favourite maxim. "If you want to see an idiot in the country, bring one out from the town."
I remember my cousins coming down from Chicago to visit us one summer weekend. We didn't have any cattle at that time, just pigs and chickens. The neighbor across the road, however, had a nice bull in his pasture. The cousins wanted to ride the bull, like they'd seen. We were more than happy to let them go try. The parents saw them trying to climb the fence and put a stop to our fun. So we told them that since they couldn't do that, they should go get one of those little piglets and pet it - the Mama pig wouldn't mind. God, did we get our butts beat for that one when they did. Mama pig literally ripped the pants off one of the cousins. Good times in the country.
Country folks learn to adapt fast. I'd put better odds on them to survive in the inner city, than I would an inner city denizen to survive in the country.
The survival of either will come down to how fast they adapt.
It depends, I'd think, on whether the country boys get to keep their long guns against them farcical "drive by" clowns who hold their pistoles sideways and wave 'em around in people's faces.
For something along that line, read "Country Boys" by Lazlo Zalezac.
"drive by" clowns who hold their pistoles sideways
I think holding the pistol sideways is optimal when you don't care to aim 'cause hitting anyone out there is ok for you and you are using an – illegal – full auto version.
No muzzle climb, the muzzle moves sidewards, getting you a better 'spray' effect.
HM.
Allegedly true story from the cocaine wars of the 80s.
Dealer 1 doesn't pay Banger 2.
Dealer 2 arranges for a drive buy shooting of Dealer 1.
Driver 1 drives.
Brother 1 hangs out the far side door and attempts to shoot while leaning over the car roof.
Brother 2 inside the car tries a one handed vertical hold with a Mac 10. He's never fired a gun before.
Mac 10 barrel climbs past the vertical, brother 1 gets Marvined.
Driver 1 panics, crashes the car.
Brother 2 panics, runs home and tells mom.
Mom drags him back to the scene of the crime, demands to be let through the police line because its her son in the car. Asked how she knows. "Because her son was in the car and told her." Cuffs. The end.
Spray and pray is not effective, except for collateral damage.
barrel climbs past the vertical
Can't happen when the shooter holds the gun sideways.
Spray and pray is not effective, except for collateral damage.
If there is a group of gang members standing around and some of a another gang do a "drive by" they usually don't care about collateral damage. Most those gang members lack any gun training (range time zero hours) and together with the problem of hitting any aimed-at target while shooting out of a driving car they resolve to spray and pray. When holding the gun sideways they increase the probability of hitting someone in the group instead of innocent people on the upper floor.
That said, holding the gun sideways in any other situation I can imagine is at least ineffective or just suicidal.
HM.
That said, holding the gun sideways in any other situation I can imagine is at least ineffective or just suicidal.
Ignoring the 'gun' rather than pistol or revolver description, there is no reason a sidearm won't work if held sideways. The only thing that changes is the skill of the shooter.
Therefore if you trained holding a sidearm sideways there is no reason you could not be as accurate as someone trained and holding their sidearm in the traditional way.
The exception would be where the sights are used to correct for target distance, but if that situation arises it is time to reach for a larger weapon.
Ignoring the 'gun' rather than pistol or revolver description, there is no reason a sidearm won't work if held sideways. The only thing that changes is the skill of the shooter.
Therefore if you trained holding a sidearm sideways there is no reason you could not be as accurate as someone trained and holding their sidearm in the traditional way.
The exception would be where the sights are used to correct for target distance, but if that situation arises it is time to reach for a larger weapon.
There are some firearms on the market that will jam periodically if fired in such a manner. Especially on the cheaper end. This is further aggravated by the physics involved in the recoil. Semi-auto pistols are typically blow back action. The act of holding it sideways reduces the natural push back from the palm leading to what is known as "limp wristing." This also causes inconsistant changes in point of aim.
The sites not only correct for elevation, they correct for left and right.
Anyone bothering to train will be trained to do it right except in very specific cases. Special forces and other similar groups will train in multiple positions such as lying on their sides firing around a corner, and in some special conditions, hanging inverted. Some of the cowboy action shooters will train for snap shots from the hip.
In 98% of cases, training will involve utilization of the sites.
Anyone bothering to train will be trained to do it right except in very specific cases.
Agreed. But that was not the point.
When you examine a training method it is not uncommon to reach a point where the answer to; "Why do you do it that way?" is "Because we always have/I was taught that way/it's good enough for (insert organisation). The truth is that whilst there are methods that are tried and tested, they are NOT the only effective methods. If you train from the start in a certain way, train regularly, there is no reason why the method used should not result in success.
If there was only one way to produce an expert shot, then every single marksman in the world would have trained in the exact same way. Obviously they don't, so obviously various methods work.
Train only holding a sidearm sideways, train often, and you could hit the bullseye just as frequently as someone trained in a regular stance.
I'm not suggesting that firing sideways is as good, or even worth consideration, I am saying that if trained that way, it is no less accurate.
When you examine a training method it is not uncommon to reach a point where the answer to; "Why do you do it that way?" is "Because we always have/I was taught that way/it's good enough for (insert organisation).
Because from the time firearms were invented, armies, gun manufacturers, sportsmen/women, including people with doctorate degrees in human physiology and weapon design have been researching better ways to hit things precisely with a bullet.
Because lives and nations depend on having the best engineered weapons and the best training methods for those weapons.
Just my opinion, yours may vary.
Because lives and nations depend on having the best engineered weapons and the best training methods for those weapons.
Except that all too often the actual equipment issued was supplied by the lowest bidder.
Train only holding a sidearm sideways, train often, and you could hit the bullseye just as frequently as someone trained in a regular stance.
I'm not suggesting that firing sideways is as good, or even worth consideration, I am saying that if trained that way, it is no less accurate.
The history of firearms, and the use thereof, show those statements to be untrue. The physics alone would prove those statements untrue, not to mention the related physiology.
If you took the time to research it, that is the answer you'll find.
The physics alone would prove those statements untrue
Presumably you contend that a firearm will not work unless 'upright'...?
SMH
Presumably you contend that a firearm will not work unless 'upright'...?
Never said that, reference my earlier post. There is a world of difference between mechanically working and being accurate. There are several firearms that will cycle just fine but are not accurate regardless of firing position.
There are several firearms that will cycle just fine but are not accurate regardless of firing position.
There are, historically, a plethora of firearms that are more dangerous to the user than any target, even more that were at best ill conceived. But none of that actually changes the fact that a decent sidearm -can- be used in an unorthodox way and still repeatedly hit the target. Again, not that I suggest it advisable, just possible.
Because we always have/I was taught that way/it's good enough for (insert organisation).
For the record, "just because" or any variant thereof, has never been a basis for me to accept any given thing.
Mythbusters actually tested this one a while ago. Their conclusion: Shooting gangsta style is fucking awful. You can't use the sights and your control of the weapon is terrible. It was worse than anything else they tested, including firing two guns simultaneously at two different targets.
It wasn't just a matter of training; their results with shooting straight-armed but with the gun upright were comparable to their Weaver stance results, which they'd actually trained in.
In 98% of cases, training will involve utilization of the sites.
A site like SOL? Maybe sights?
A site like SOL? Maybe sights?
If we are being 100% proper, it's "sights." If we are using the vernacular of most gun enthusiast, it's "sites" or "gunsites".
I'd it's just being a smartass, well it's a site like SOL, Yahoo, Google etc.
If we are using the vernacular of most gun enthusiast, it's "sites" or "gunsites".
Ummm... sorry, but no. A 'site' is a place, a location. You routinely "sight" in a gun, and aim it by looking down the "sights." Both involve the eyes, and looking (sighting) at the target.
Then again, there is a "target site"... generally blackened and scorched after the shot if the weapon of choice is a bit larger.
A look around the web will show multiple usage of "site" and or "gunsite." I agree the proper term is "sights" and or "gun sights."
Spray and pray is not effective, except for collateral damage.
Then why are us police being taught to shoot that way.
What else do you think happens when you mag dump a semi-auto pistol by firing as fast as humanly possible until the slide locks open? And yes, US police are being explicitly trained to do this.
That's stupid. I could do with one well placed shot just as much as your mag dump. With a lot less hazard to incidental injury.
Might as well issue a MAC-10 or a Grease Gun.
Might as well issue a MAC-10 or a Grease Gun.
I agree, but that is how US police forces are being trained to shoot in actual live fire situations, mag dump on the first apparent threat. Aside from the efficiency and collateral damage issues, it's tactically stupid.
If there is a second threat near by, congratulations, you just disarmed yourself.
Thats a liability law suit waiting to happen. Also potential manslaughter charges.
Shooting until the threat to life is stopped is legal. Beyond that it is criminal negligence.
Acquiring the sights after each shot and evaluating the threat is the correct way to do this. This can be done as a 'snap sight picture' as the sights come back on target and not as a long drawn out look and see while the gun is pointed at the ground between shots.
Doing it so fast it appears to be a mag dump is quite possible. It just requires lots of expensive training. One LEO I know did 30,000 rounds at the academy. He appears to be spraying and praying, but the center is always chewed out of the target.
In departments that don't provide much in the way of live fire training, such as New York City with its once a year qualification*, mandating a heavy trigger pull is seen as a protection against wrongful death lawsuits.
"My baby a goodboy! He dindu nuffin! Po po didn't shoot him because he had a gun, Po po shot him because they don't get enough training and put their fingers on their super light hair triggers. Give me ten million from the training budget for my pain and suffering." etc. So heavy triggers.
Of course, a heavy trigger pull means its much harder to shoot accurately, as the gun tends to get pushed off target.
Another factor is little or no force on force 'simunition' paintball training, as there is simply no psychological preparation for a gun fight in timed shooting at paper targets.
The FBI started using crisis actors at Quantico in the seventies. One officer I met recounted the crying 'female hostage' actually being a suicide bomber trying to draw him closer. Not many departments do that today.
Further, the 'officer survival movement' in the 70s took the mindset from Serve & Protect to "I go home at the end of my shift" and a Cops, Crooks and Civilians mental divide. This was a reaction to the huge increase in violence after drugs started to flow into the cities during Vietnam and politicians showed they were willing to throw police under the bus to stay in office.
The deliberate militarization of police forces since 2001 has continued and expanded that mindset.
So. Poor training, bad gun, ingrained suspicion of the public, threat is seen, panic sets in and the gun is fired to slide lock. Sights probably not used, lots of holes where they should not be.
Which is how a few years back there was a NYC shooting where the cops shot ten bystanders and travesties such as the shooting of Amadou Diallo or the shooting of two ladies by LAPD when they were hunting rogue cop Christopher Dorner.
* I'm a few years out of date, so this may have changed. Also this is a very broad strokes cover of the ideas behind it. Every time a cop or armed civilian takes a dubious shot it makes the news, very rarely does network TV take up a story where a cop or armed citizen prevented a massacre. And I'll die of old age, be reincarnated and die of old age again before they report on a case where everything went right and no one was shot.
If you would like a humorous take on how it can happen, the Law Dog Files recounts a time when the writer was sent into a building after an armed man, by himself, late at night. He accidently activated an animatronic Santa Clause and got knocked down by it. He shot it.
https://thelawdogfiles.blogspot.com/2006/02/tragic-death-of-santa-claus.html
Then why are us police being taught to shoot that way.
Some people promote and train for constant rapid fire because they believe that while you're throwing lead downstream at the other guy he's ducking and not throwing lead at you, and you're hoping a team mate will be ready to shoot when you have to stop to reload.
The most proven effective way to fire a handgun is in a double tap or triple tap. The thinking here is even if they have on armor the impact of a couple of rounds will knock them about enough to give you time to put the next set where it will take them out.
and you're hoping a team mate will be ready to shoot when you have to stop to reload.
Which is just wrong. Experience in the US with large scale police shootings shows a large problem with contagious shooting. Once one officer opens fire, the rest of them will open fire nearly simultaneously, it's been shown that even officers who have no line of site on the threat will open fire.
Experience in the US with large scale police shootings shows a large problem with contagious shooting. Once one officer opens fire, the rest of them will open fire nearly simultaneously, it's been shown that even officers who have no line of site on the threat will open fire.
Which is true about how it happens in practice, while I was speaking about the theory behind the reasons for training in that way. I never said the theory and practice matched.
Then why are us police being taught to shoot that way.
A combination of politics, budget, incompetence and ego.
In order to teach a group of people to shoot at people who both deserve to be shot and may shoot back, it takes a lot more than simply teaching basic range safety and which direction to fire in as you empty your magazine.
BUT
As Radagast has already pointed out, very very few groups train their people in realistic conditions. It costs a lot of time and money, is politically incorrect, and it requires a certain mindset that most police do not possess.
There are swat squads that couldn't be trusted to hit a barn door when under fire, despite the extra training, so it is stupid to expect a 'normal' officer to be better.
An example.
them farcical "drive by" clowns who hold their pistoles sideways and wave 'em around in people's faces.
There's actually a few reasons for doing that, and none of them relate to accuracy. Holding the gun with the back of your hand vertical puts more strain on the arm muscles than if you hold the gun with the back of the hand horizontal. Also, a vertical hold limits sideways movement to the wrist of the shoulder while the horizontal hold allows you to use the elbow to move the gun from side to side faster. The last is it matters not if you're left handed or right handed the brass gets kicked away from you.
Dump a country boy out in the middle of the inner city and see how long he lasts.
Greybeard beat me to it, with the story reference.
And with the other comment regarding weaponry.
Not to mention that most country boys know how to set snare traps, along with other assorted trickery. Or as Paul Hogan said in the 1986 movie, "That's not a knife. THIS is a knife."
I'd not sit for a week if I pulled something like that. Our more urban/city relatives would visit the rez from time to time. Me and my siblings were task to keep them out of trouble. I spent enough time behind the wood shed on my own without inviting more by letting my relatives get hurt out of ignorance.
One thing for sure: we knew all our neighbors. And they knew us kids. And if we 'got up to mischief' our parents knew it before we got home that day.
And we were expected to use sharp tools safely.
Starting at age 12, long guns. And the local NRA and American Legion sportsmen held gun safety classes with indoor bullet traps and .22 rifles.
And as soon as we could ride horses or bicycles (sometimes both) we had the run of the district, all day, every day, as long as chores were done and no school in session.
Again, if we 'got up to mischief,' word of it beat us home!
And, once again, a topic goes totally off the rails into inconsequential tangents.
God, I love this place.
Rails? What steenking rails?
So, the homestead rancher segues into his profit-loss statement on his computer, seriously glitched by a compromised OS and obsolete accounting program; when the collection agency sends thugs to repossess the hay baler (now rendered all but inoperable by the crusty debris of the ill-fated third cutting) and when one of the thugs shoots Princess Meadowlark, the rancher's beloved stock dog, it's a wild melee of thugs sideways flinging deadly sprays of .69 Rumble hollowpoints at Rancher Dave, killing many of his prize Angola steers in the adjoining pasture. Chipblock, Dave's son, retaliates with a directed EMP burst that destroys the ... and so on and on... Segue into martial arts training for Martian space flight volunteers.
"That bothered me, too," Ken admitted, "but we'd have to squeeze it in between the second cutting and school starting."
Question - "second cutting" of what?
If the story was set in a city, it could be a second round of self-harming.
NB: 'second cutting' should not be confused with 'shaving a minute off'.
Essentially, my experience has been that those who've handled and shot pistols with an intention of hitting something, know the difference. And those who've not done it, don't know.
I've grown up with long guns and pistols and over time learned to hit what need hitting. Basically there are two approaches: point and shoot, and aimed shooting. Both require time in training and practice. The first, P&S, is more instinctual. The second, aim & fire, is deliberative and extremely disciplined. One can be skilfull in both methods.
The 'gangsta' sideways-grip affectation is ludicrous and indefensible. It's part and parcel of the accompanying 'chicken dance' as described by Lazlo Zalezac in his story, "Country Boys."
So a potentially interesting topic has now devolved into a discussion of how to shoot hand guns, interspersed with a diatribe on agrarianism.